Brink's fights BATFE hard over FFL revocation

This is a discussion on Brink's fights BATFE hard over FFL revocation within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Courthouse News Service
DALLAS (CN) - Brink's wants to depose a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives over the revocation of ...

Brink's fights BATFE hard over FFL revocation

DALLAS (CN) - Brink's wants to depose a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives over the revocation of a federal firearms license that allows the armored car company to buy thousands of guns at a discount.

Brink's filed a petition for discovery in Federal Court, seeking to depose Megan Bennett, Director of Industry Operations for the BATF.

Brink's says it owns more than 14,000 guns, which are used by its 9,000 employees in 220 branches across the country.

Brink's says that after the BATF inspected its facility in Coppell, Texas in December 2010, it received a notice of revocation from Bennett.

It claims the revocation is illegal and against the BATF's own policies.

"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." Ted Nugent

Good ol' Brinks, protecting the medium of trade and commerce (money) can't keep its legally-obtained FFL, yet the Department of Education and the Internal Revenue Service - branches of government with no specific law enforcement purpose or charter - get to buy all the guns they want.

If Brinks is using their FFL to purchase firearms, then loaning them to their employees, they may be in violation. If instead Brinks is purchasing them, filing 4473s, and reselling them (even at cost) to their employees, then the BATF is wrong.